What's the true story on patent invalidity determinations?
On March 15, 2005, IPBiz discussed Lunney's findings that patent invalidity determinations were down.
In a recent article (46 IDEA 1), Abbott and Michel of the FTC report 58% of (contested) patents were invalidated in 2003, citing to U Houston PatStats
(http://www.patstats.org/2003.html).
What's the correct story on the trend in patent invalidity at the courts?
The article also talked about injunctions, and cited to Richardson v. Suzuki (not MercExchange v. eBay). The law on permanent injunctions is the same in the two cases, despite allegations that the eBay case enunciated something new.
The article had an interesting typo: A patentee must exercise its property right -- it's right to exclude -- in a manner that is consistent with the laws.
The article also cited Continental Paper for "Patents are property."
In a recent article (46 IDEA 1), Abbott and Michel of the FTC report 58% of (contested) patents were invalidated in 2003, citing to U Houston PatStats
(http://www.patstats.org/2003.html).
What's the correct story on the trend in patent invalidity at the courts?
The article also talked about injunctions, and cited to Richardson v. Suzuki (not MercExchange v. eBay). The law on permanent injunctions is the same in the two cases, despite allegations that the eBay case enunciated something new.
The article had an interesting typo: A patentee must exercise its property right -- it's right to exclude -- in a manner that is consistent with the laws.
The article also cited Continental Paper for "Patents are property."
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 11:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home